5 U.S.C. § 706 directs courts reviewing federal agency action to decide legal questions and apply specified review standards. Loper Bright rejected Chevron’s requirement of deference to reasonable agency interpretations of ambiguous statutes. [2]
Independent judgment still has boundaries
Courts must exercise independent judgment on statutory meaning. Agency expertise and persuasive reasoning can remain relevant, and Congress can lawfully delegate particular discretionary authority. The decision does not make every agency interpretation invalid. [2]
Section 706 also addresses arbitrary or capricious action, legal violations, required procedures, factual review in specified proceedings, and unlawfully withheld or unreasonably delayed action. [1]
Match the argument to the agency error
Identify the challenged action, governing statute, administrative record, and relevant review route. A statutory-interpretation challenge differs from a challenge to factfinding or discretionary reasoning. Identify the precise disputed words or omitted evidentiary analysis so the court can apply the correct standard. [1][2]
Finality, standing, exhaustion, and remedy remain separate issues. Citing Loper Bright does not automatically create district-court jurisdiction or entitle a challenger to relief. [2]
Practical application
A challenger who says an agency misread a statutory term should explain the best reading of that term using the statute’s text and structure. A challenger who disputes the agency’s technical explanation should address the record and the applicable review standard. Combining both objections without distinguishing them can obscure what the court must decide and what remedy could follow. [2]
Section 706 provides more than one remedy framework
The statute directs courts to compel unlawfully withheld or unreasonably delayed action and to set aside agency action meeting specified defects. It also instructs review of the whole record or cited portions and attention to prejudicial error. A challenger should identify the duty or defect and explain why it matters. Loper Bright changes the statutory-interpretation approach previously associated with Chevron; it does not eliminate all agency discretion or factual review standards. The requested remedy should fit the legal error rather than assume the court can make every underlying agency decision itself. [1] [2]
Related questions
Related guidance: 5 U.S.C. 553: Federal Rulemaking Procedures and 5 U.S.C. 554: Formal Agency Hearings.
Primary sources
- 5 U.S.C. § 706 — Office of Law Revision Counsel
- Supreme Court: Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo (2024)
Sources checked: October 31, 2026.